Ernst Strüngmann Forum

Muna Adem, Drew Blasco, Andrea Bohman, Heide Castañeda, Christian S. Czymara, Joerg Dollmann, Maureen A. Eger, Tyrone A. Forman, Daniel Gabrielsson, San Juanita García, Anastasia Gorodzeisky, Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, Marc Helbling, Mikael Hjerm, Seth M. Holmes, Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, Tomás R. Jiménez, Irena Kogan, Christian Albrekt Larsen, Bruce G. Link, Rahsaan Maxwell, Supriya Misra, Dina Okamoto, John E. Pachankis, Nicolas Rüsch, Georg Schomerus, Patrick Simon, Anders Vassenden, Paolo Velásquez, Katie Wang, Markus Weißmann, Rima Wilkes, Lawrence H. Yang, Min Zhou

Science is a highly specialized enterprise—one that enables areas of inquiry to be minutely pursued, establishes working paradigms and normative standards in disciplinary fields, and supports rigor in experimental research. Yet all too often, “problems” are encountered in research that fall outside the scope of any one discipline, and to get past the intellectual “dead ends” that result, external input is needed.

The Ernst Strüngmann Forum was established in 2006 to address such issues. The topics that we select transcend classic disciplinary boundaries and center on problems encountered in ongoing research: issues that require scrutiny from multiple vantage points and the requisite expertise to do so, where conceptualization has stagnated, and the way forward is anything but certain. Our approach promotes interdisciplinary collaboration among international researchers, facilitates the expansion of knowledge, and generates potential trajectories for future research to pursue.

Approach

The Ernst Strüngmann Forum is guided by an independent Scientific Advisory Board that is responsible for identifying topics to develop and for reviewing submitted proposals. These topics emerge from a need in basic science, address a problem of high-priority interest to the scientific disciplines involved, are interdisciplinary by nature, take an unbiased approach to the defined problem, involve active researchers from the respective fields, and aim to delineate ways for future research to consider and pursue. Topics are developed in partnership with active research scientists. Given the relevance of a theme to multiple disciplines, each topic benefits from being proposed by senior representatives of the primary research areas involved. Once accepted, the following stages define further development:

Program Advisory Committee

To bring the issues outlined by the proposal into a scientifi c framework that will support the focal meeting, or Forum, we convene a Program Advisory Committee. Open, unbiased discourse at a Forum requires a diversity of perspectives and viewpoints. Thus, as it selects Forum participants, the committee aims for balanced representation from the various disciplinary areas involved.

The Forum

Best imagined as an intellectual retreat or week-long think tank, formal presentations do not take place at a Forum. Instead, participants engage in an evolving dialogue designed to maximize intellectual outcomes. To prepare for this, invited “background papers” introduce key topics and unresolved problem areas which will be addressed at the Forum. These papers are circulated in advance, so that by the time everyone arrives in Frankfurt, a basis for discussion has been established. The central theme is approached by four working groups, comprised of researchers from various scientific disciplines. Each participant plays an active role in the discussion. Groups work autonomously, guided by a moderator, yet interact over the course of the week. To ensure that emerging insights do not get lost, each group generates a draft report. Attention is given to areas where agreement could not be reached as well as ideas for future research. On the final day of the Forum, the plenum evaluates collective progress and identifies remaining work. This feedback guides the finalization of the group reports.

Strüngmann Forum Reports

For research to benefit from the ideas generated at each Forum, results are made available through the Strüngmann Forum Reports, a monograph series published in partnership with The MIT Press. Each volume off ers up-to-date information on the topics discussed at a Forum and highlights proposed research directions. A two-tier peer review process guides the editing. Each volume is available in book form as well as online via MIT Press Direct and the Ernst Strüngmann Forum website.

The 32nd Ernst Strüngmann Forum: Stigma Processes in the Context of Migration-Generated Diversity

The impetus for this Forum began at a meeting of our Scientifi c Advisory Board in February 2018. Initiated by Amber Wutich, the topic of stigma emerged as a focal point requiring future attention; specifically, the need to expand understanding on the origins and processes inherent to stigma as well as its cross-cultural manifestations and potential approaches to destigmatize. To pursue this theme, I met with Lawrence Yang in November 2018 to discuss the state of research into the processes of stigmatization. Having just attended a Forum on youth mental health in July 2018 (Uhlhaas and Wood 2019), I was interested to learn what types of problems were being experienced, and whether the Forum’s approach could be of assistance. A series of discussions followed and ultimately led Lawrence Yang, Bruce Link, and Maureen Eger to submit a proposal entitled “Stigma, Prejudice and the Immigration Experience: Understanding and Addressing the Consequences of Migration Stigma.” A thorough review process resulted in further development, and in September 2019, the Scientific Advisory Board approved the proposal.

From February 27–29, 2020, the Program Advisory Committee was invited to Frankfurt, Germany, to fine-tune the proposal. Joining us on the committee were Irena Kogan and Christian Albrekt Larsen. Together, we worked to refine overarching goals, delineate discussion topics, and select participants.

The Forum was originally scheduled to take place on June 6–11, 2021, but like so many other gatherings, it needed to be rescheduled due to conditions imposed by the COVID pandemic. A year later, conditions improved and we were able to convene an in-person Forum in Frankfurt (a) to scrutinize the relationships between stigma and migration-generated diversity and (b) to explore the linkages that underpin stigma in the context of migration-generated diversity at multiple levels and from diverse perspectives. The ensuing discussion was constructed around four general themes:

1. How are stigma processes related to different aspects of migrationgenerated diversity?
2. How do differences in the daily lived experiences of minority and majority social groups contribute to stigma and, alternatively, processes of resilience and social cohesion?
3. How are stigma processes reflected in (social, public, and private) policies? How do policies mitigate and/or amplify stigma processes?
4. Stigmatization and destigmatization: Emergence, persistence, and dissipation.

This volume, structured around these topical areas, contains the background papers that initiated the discussion. Each paper has been finalized to reflect the current state of knowledge on the topic. In addition, summary reports of each discussion group are provided (see Chapters 2, 5, 8, and 10). They provide a synthesis of a vibrant discussion and seek to highlight areas that require further consideration and research.

As one might imagine, a Forum is not a linear process. The initial framework put into place triggered lively debate and created unique group dynamics (see Yang et al., this volume). I wish to thank each person who participated in this Forum for their time, efforts, and positive attitudes, which greatly helped off set conditions brought about by COVID restrictions. A special word of thanks goes to the Program Advisory Committee as well as to the authors and reviewers of the background papers. In addition, the work of the discussion groups’ moderators—Bruce Link, Tomás Jiménez, Christian Albrekt Larsen, and Maureen Eger—and rapporteurs—Drew Blasco, San Juanita García, Supriya Misra, and Paolo Velásquez—deserves special recognition. To support lively debate and transform this into a coherent, multiauthor report is no simple matter. Finally, I extend my appreciation to Lawrence Yang, Bruce Link, and Maureen Eger, whose expertise and commitment accompanied the entire project.

The Ernst Strüngmann Forum is able to conduct its work in the service of science and society due to the generous backing of the Ernst Strüngmann Foundation, established by Dr. Andreas and Dr. Thomas Strüngmann in honor of their father. I also wish to acknowledge the support received from our Scientific Advisory Board as well as the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, which provided supplemental financial support for this project.

Expanding the boundaries to knowledge is never simple and can be easily compromised by long-held views, which are difficult to put aside. Yet once such limitations are recognized, the act of formulating strategies to get past these points can be a most invigorating activity. On behalf of everyone involved, I hope this volume will expand understanding of the multilevel and temporal processes that contribute to migration stigma and equip societies to address its harmful consequences.

International migration and societal reactions to it constitute some of the most important issues of the contemporary era. This does not mean that migration itself is a recent phenomenon. Throughout history, humans have crossed geographic and political boundaries for economic, social, and political reasons. In the modern era, international migrants are defined as individuals who reside outside of their country of birth. Myriad factors motivate individuals to migrate: economic opportunity, family reunification, war, or persecution as well as instability brought on by climate change, economic recession, political turmoil, and pandemics. Although the reasons why people migrate vary considerably, growing skepticism toward immigration is evident worldwide. Indeed, nationalist rhetoric and the politicization of immigration have increased in recent decades, spurring political unrest, racial and ethnic conflict, and the scapegoating and inhumane treatment of immigrants. Persistent global trends, such as climate change, suggest that immigration and its consequences will continue if not increase in coming years. Thus, it is imperative to understand the interplay of societal reactions to immigration and the patterns of exclusion or inclusion among immigrants and their descendants.

For the complete chapter click on button below.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

Research in the fields of migration and stigma have much to offer each other yet to date, collaboration has been lacking. When migration occurs, diversity is generated. Inherent in this “migration-generated diversity” is the key role that the “movement” of people or the political boundaries around them plays in outcomes such as prejudice, stigma, and discrimination. Under certain conditions, migration-generated diversity may result in prejudice (a concept historically used more often by the migration field), stigma, or a combination of prejudice and stigma (or neither). To advance dialogue between these fields, this chapter presents a “conceptual mapping tool,” developed to assist researchers as they formulate questions to be addressed by the migration field for which stigma frameworks and perspectives may better inform results. In addition, three theoretical perspectives—group threat theory, intersectionality, and “what matters most,” some of which were selected from the conceptual mapping tool are discussed, presenting key examples to elucidate the implications of migration-generated diversity and stigma. Future research should (a) explore additional ways to conceptualize the relationship between stigma concepts and migration-generated diversity, (b) evaluate the tool’s utility in relation to migration-related phenomena, and (c) develop more precise ways to measure relevant concepts with the aim of generating more informed and tailored interventions to reduce the impacts of prejudice, discrimination, and stigma.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on group threat theory (Blumer 1958), one of the main sociological approaches used to explain prejudice toward minority groups. It examines the utility of the theory when applied to prejudice in the context of migration-generated diversity and analyzes how its original formulation by Blumer compares with the conceptualization of stigma by Link and Phelan (2001). Similarities and differences are drawn between Blumer’s “four feelings” in prejudice and Link and Phelan’s “four components” constitutive of stigma. Despite overlapping, complementary, and at time divergent arguments, using these two approaches in tandem may overcome the limitations of group threat theory and, in the process, advance research into anti-immigrant sentiment. In turn, it is posited that scholarship on stigma may gain from incorporating the concept of threat into its framework.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

To provide a foundation for understanding migration-generated stigma, existing theoretical and research accounts of general stigma processes are reviewed. Existing frameworks of stigma are discussed, including those that have organized stigma according to its social functions, evolutionary functions, and associated stereotype contents, and structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal manifestations of stigma are reviewed. These manifestations impact numerous health outcomes through replaceable intervening mechanisms and make stigma a fundamental cause of poor health. Postulated causes and dimensional features of stigma are considered that highlight similarities and distinctions across diverse stigmatized characteristics. The application of existing theory and research is explored for the specific case of migration-generated stigma and several future research directions highlighted. By providing a broad overview of several decades’ worth of theory and research into stigma, this chapter positions the field of migration-generated stigma to understand the nature and function of this particular form of stigma and pursue the most promising paths toward its reduction.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the lived experiences of immigrants, the stigma processes they confront, and the response mechanisms that they use to counteract and challenge stigma. It introduces a multilevel conceptual framework to further understanding of the lived experience of and resistance to stigma among immigrant groups. Drawing heavily on migration studies, which often highlight lived experiences of stigma without referencing the concept by name, it is argued that the stigma concept can enrich our understanding of immigrants’ lived experiences. The stigma literature provides abundant examples of how members of diverse and minoritized groups experience stigmatization and the consequences this creates for people’s life chances (e.g., mental health, physical health, education, employment, housing segregation). A typology is created to highlight how immigrants become aware of, respond to, and affect stigmatization. This typology is then incorporated into macro and meso frameworks to emphasize the multiple forces that act upon stigma among immigrant groups. Focusing on immigrants’ lived experiences enables us to understand how immigrants confront and challenge stigma.

The understanding [Verstehen] of other persons and their expressions of life is based upon both the lived experience [Erlebens] and understanding of oneself, and their continual interaction. —Wilhelm Dilthey (1927:123)

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

To establish the impact that discrimination or unfair treatment has on ethnic minority students, this chapter explores the trajectories and outcomes of students in the German education and training system. Compared to native-born students, migrant and ethnic minority students who report discriminatory experiences are, on average, more likely to enter more educational pathways marked by larger uncertainty. However, results from the authors’ study indicate that minority students who experience discrimination in school are also likely to pursue favorable educational paths, perhaps because they develop better coping strategies and resilience in light of adverse situations in school. Ultimately, students who report discrimination at school are more likely to fail in attaining any degree. Yet, the relationship between discrimination experienced in school and educational or training outcomes is largely uniform for minority and for native-born students.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

The concept of stigma helps to explain the social effects of othering due to migrant status. Because stigma affects the overall distribution of life chances (e.g., health, educational success, employment opportunities, housing), it is important to consider the intersection of different stigmatized statuses and multiple outcomes. Here, five components of stigma are used to examine the stigmatization processes that affect immigrant youth: labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination. Since immigrants push back against labeling as well as the accompanying exclusions and limitations that follow, the role of resistance and empowerment is explored. Different from reverse stigmatization, in which stigma reverts back to the stigmatizer, resistance, flourishing, and self-representation play major roles among the immigrant youth who experience stigmatization. This can be seen in individual and collective actions as well as in political, economic, social, and legal contexts (e.g., illegalization, undocumentation, deportability), and may inform ways to counter stigma. It is necessary to consider when stigma domains can occur independently of, and then in tandem with, the structural circumstance of migrant status, especially for those who are undocumented.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

How are stigma processes reflected in policies that impact migrants? How might policies that impact migrants amplify and/or mitigate stigma processes for migrants? This chapter explores the role of policy narratives and frameworks (e.g., assimilation, integration, multiculturalism) in shaping specific policy types (e.g., targeted, universal, mainstream) that differentially conceptualize and affect the roles, rights, and opportunities of migrants in society. The complexity of the policy-making process is examined, including the specific policy context and political discourse, trade-offs leading to a mix of policy types, competing policies across jurisdictions (e.g., international, federal, regional), and differential implementation of policies. Throughout, policies are considered that can intentionally or unintentionally generate, amplify, and/or mitigate stigma processes. In addition, this chapter examines consequences of these policy-generated stigma experiences for both migrants and nonmigrants, the feedback processes from these stigma experiences to the demand for policy change, and strategies to improve policy making with specific consideration for stigma in the context of migration-generated diversity. Empirical gaps in the literature are noted and recommendations are made to address these knowledge gaps.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

Research from across the social sciences has provided essential insights into how stigma operates to disadvantage those who are targeted by it. This research has, however, focused primarily on the perceptions of stigmatized individuals and on micro-level interactions. Over the past decade, a new line of stigma research has highlighted the adverse consequences of structural forms of stigma for members of stigmatized groups. This chapter reviews emerging evidence from cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental studies and demonstrates that one dimension of structural stigma—social policies—can amplify stigma processes, thereby heightening health risks. Furthermore, research shows that policy efforts that seek to mitigate structural stigma can have salubrious health effects. Strategies are discussed that researchers have used to address causal inferences regarding the relationship between social policies and health among stigmatized groups: identifying mechanisms; triangulating evidence across diverse methods, outcomes, and groups; conducting falsification tests; controlling for potential confounders; and evaluating plausible alternative explanations. Finally, ideas for future research are offered to strengthen and extend this work.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

This chapter advances a theoretical framework to understand within- and between-country variation in the level of stigmatization experienced by immigrant groups and their descendants over time. Since processes of stigmatization and destigmatization may unfold over generations, it is imperative for research to adopt a longer time horizon to identify the factors that lead to the emergence, persistence, and/or dissipation of stigma. Expanding the time frame of analysis to decades (or even centuries) requires an explicit focus on the experiences of groups rather than individuals. Based on the observation that the labeling of some groups as “migrants” does not always follow from actual histories of immigration, this framework treats “migrant” as a social category. To guide future empirical research, this chapter introduces two analytical models. The first identifies the factors and processes responsible for stigmatization or destigmatization over time. The second presents five ideal-typical pathways that immigrants and their descendants may experience in relation to stigma: non-emergence, increase, reinforcement, reduction, and status reversal.

• PDF of the Chapter

Abstract

Immigration-related diversity in the contemporary era poses a challenge for democratic societies, as immigrants continue to face stigmatization, which includes processes such as stereotyping, devaluation, exclusion, and discrimination. This chapter reviews the social conditions that contribute to processes of destigmatization among immigrants in the United States and Europe. Throughout the chapter, reference is made to “immigrants”—a complex term that includes, but is not limited to, economic migrants, refugees, citizens, legal permanent residents, and the undocumented who vary by national origin, language, religion, ethnicity, and race. Destigmatization processes are analyzed within European and U.S. contexts at three levels: structural (in terms of policies), institutional (the role of political elites, media, and social movements), and individual (as it relates to intergroup contact). The chapter concludes with a discussion of open areas for future research.

• PDF of the Chapter